Could you please qualify this statement?
Could you please qualify this statement?
Basically, the issue is that if a company knows that an employee possesses or has possessed weapons on company property, and if that employee happens to go berzerk and kill people with such weapons, victims' lawyers will claim that the company should be held liable for failing to do something to prevent the person from bringing the weapons onto company property and shooting people.
You know and I know that such a line of reasoning is absurd. Unfortunately, in today's legal climate, there are judges who will let such cases be heard, and jurors who will buy into such arguments. The actual likelihood of a plaintiff ultimately winning such a case is irrelevant; such cases are expensive for the defendant regardless of who ultimately wins.